Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court, with the prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 15.02.2001 ordering recovery of a sum of Rs.53,043/- (Rupees fifty three thousand and forty three only) with consequential relief of issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the retirement benefits to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 31.07.1969 as Surveilance worker and thereafter as Basic Health worker in the year 1974. The petitioner after rendering 32 years of service retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The case of the petitioner is that a nature of duties of the petitioner was of field visit work with no standard time at a given place. 4. That Medical officer in collusion with Treasury Officer by taking advantage of the ignorance of the petitioner, embezzled certain amount of the subordinates in the guise of withdrawal of G.P.F. advance. The audit party submitted a special report regarding the racket which was going on in overdrawal of G.P.F. Contribution. One Mr.Venugopal in connivance with the Treasury was said to have withdrawn the amount standing to the credit of various individuals working in the medical centre by forging their signatures. 5. The case of the petitioner is that before concluding enquiry proceedings initiated against the petitioner, and without issuing any show cause notice and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the respondents have passed the impugned order of recovery of Rs.53,043/- (Rupees fifty three thousand and forty three only) in 53 instalments at the rate of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) per month. 6. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had withdrawn certain amount to which he was not entitled. It is the case of the petitioner that departmental enquiry under sec.17(b) was initiated against the petitioner by issuing charge memo dated 10.10.2000, but till date, no further proceedings have taken place in pursuance to the charge memo. Thereafter, the respondents issued another charge memo dated 21.05.2001 which stated to be still pending. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of recovery, filed representation with the respondent No.1, on the ground that without an order of recovery, it was not open to the respondent to pass the impugned order for recovery of the amount in installments. 8. 7. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order of recovery, filed representation with the respondent No.1, on the ground that without an order of recovery, it was not open to the respondent to pass the impugned order for recovery of the amount in installments. 8. The impugned order has been challenged being violative of principle of natural justice and article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. The impugned orders are also challenged on the ground of jurisdiction of the respondents to pass an order of recovery without finalising the enquiry in pursuance to the charge memo issued to the petitioner. 10. Counter has not been filed, therefore, the facts pleaded go unrebutted, which leads to only one conclusion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is not open to the respondents to order recovery of the amount from an employee without finalising the enquiry proceedings or passing an order of punishment of recovery of the amount due merely on the basis of audit objection. 11. The impugned order therefore, being totally arbitrary and having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice cannot be sustained in law. 12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner. 13. However, this order shall not bar the respondents to proceeding with the departmental enquiry, if so permissible by law.